- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 69,534
- Reaction score
- 15,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No, I'm not suggesting mosques directly are related to 9/11. I'm saying ISLAM directly is related to 9/11. I've yet to still see anyone whose shown that it isn't. All I've ever seen is people going "They're mad that we're meddling in their land or that we attacked [random middle eastern country]", however those anger issues all lead back to their religion and their belief that we're invading the "Land of Islam".
So if mosques are directly related to Islam and Islam is directly related to 9/11, is there a duality to Islam that creates a barrier to mosques being directly related to 9/11?
You can't attach and detach things to Islam for convenience sake. Islam isn't Mr. Potato Head.
I'm saying Islam is directly involved in the acts of 9/11. I'm saying that rightly or wrongly when many people think of 9/11 and Islam together at once, even people who at other times have a neutral to somewhat positive view of Islam, that it stirs up extremely negative and angry emotions. I'm saying as such having a mosque whose purpose is to be an activist location around 9/11, using its vicinity to 9/11 for its activist purposes, no matter the benevolent intentions (and frankly I question those intentions), is going to cause unneeded additional emotional distress and problems to individuals traveling to what is essentially a historic national site that is unneeded. Additionally, I think such will do MORE harm to the cause of Moderate Islam and acceptance of it in this country than good and thus is detrimental to their supposed cause and to what's best for the nation.
Those people won't have to pass by the Muslim community center when visiting Ground Zero. It's like New York City turned into San Francisco in the last couple months. In December 2009 no one had a problem with it. Now that election season is upon us once again people's feelings are hurt? In New York? The city were "What the **** is your problem?" is often a child's first words? :lol:
If a liberal took this stance it would be "political correctness run amok". I'm sorry that Al Qaeda doesn't have a capital, a uniform, a flag, or other face discernable from the rest of Islam, but Islam is not the face of terrorism. If people can't think beyond generalizations there is no reaching them.
Islam didn't cause it. Islam was instrumental in recruiting for it, fabricating a reason for it, motivating it, allowing for the methods that were used, and justifying it after the fact.
Hold on here Zyphlin. "Allowing for the methods that were used"? This certainly sounds like you are saying that the 9/11 attacks were sanctioned by Islam. If this were true, we would be dead already. We can't defeat a force of 1.5 billion people. Even if there is 1.5 million Al Qaeda members (I've heard only 100,000 estimated in the past), that's only .1% of all Muslims. That hardly earns the religion this nasty generalization.
I don't think we should enable people's ignorance. Just because people don't understand the reality doesn't mean that they should be bargained with or capitulated to. Sure, we can all understand their reaction, but that doesn't mean it should be condoned. Islam isn't the enemy, yet people certainly are acting as if it were since this became the wedge issue of 2010.